From: Christopher Healey (CHealey@unicom-inc.com)
Date: Wed Jul 27 2005 - 14:22:32 MDT
> Philip Huggan wrote:
>
>I didn't mean to suggest "grandfathering" as a safeguard against a
>deceptive AGI but as part of the actual framework of an operating FAI.
>
Same problem though. Wherever our verification latency exceeds the time constraints on executing a particular action path, we need to be able to implicitly trust the AI to act. The planetkill need not be a deception; but how would we know one way or the other? An FAI would be informing us on a real threat, and a UFAI would be exploiting a race condition against us.
>Any AGI which acts
>to invasively alter us or create conscious entities of vis own, will
>almost certainly modify humanity out of existence to free up resources
>for enitities which will likely not preserve our memories or identities.
>
This doesn't sound like an FAI to me. From above, it sounds like you agree that if we fail at FAI, it's game over.
I once thought I was pretty good at chess. Then I played against a 2200 rated opponent, who happened to be taking a class with me. We played about 17 moves to checkmate, but it was game over after the first 6! I just didn't know it yet. In retrospect, every move I made after that was compelled by my friend.
We'd better get our first moves right.
-Chris Healey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT